Open Hearing Finds Students Guilty

Just past 1 a.m. on Thursday morning, the five students that stood before the Community Judicial Board (CJB) were found guilty of two violations to the College Handbook, and sanctioned with an unofficial reprimand. The hearing — the first open CJB proceeding in over five years — drew a capacity crowd to the College’s largest auditorium, and lasted over six hours.

The students — Molly Stuart ’15.5, Jay Saper ’13, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13, Amitai Ben-Abba ’15.5 and Jenny Marks ’14.5 — were brought before the board for their involvement in the dissemination of a mock press release to students, faculty and local media outlets on Oct. 12.

Marks, who is currently volunteering in New Orleans, was present for the proceedings via Skype.

The College was represented by Michael Roy, L. Douglas and Laura J. Meredith dean of LIS and chief information officer, and Shirley Collado, dean of the College.

Sue Levine, assistant director of alumni and parent programs, served as the chair of the judicial board for the hearing. The CJB was represented by an eight-member body that included students, staff and faculty.

The proceedings opened with opening remarks from Collado in which she sought to limit the discussion of the hearing to the actions taken by the students and the alleged policy violations to the College Handbook.

Collado touched on the notion of an “all-student” email, as well as the potential harm that the mock press release might have caused to staff, students, faculty and the reputation of the College.

The Dean’s remarks were followed by impassioned speeches from the five members of the self-titled Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC), in which the students read sections of a collectively written statement.

They maintained that the message of the mock press release could not be separated from their method — an assertion the representatives from the College repeatedly challenged throughout the hearing.

The students called for immediate action from the College in divesting its endowment from the destruction of “planet and earth.” Hampshire College was cited as an example of a College that has proven that “divestment is possible.”

Throughout the proceedings, the students were aided by four faculty advisors: Tara Affolter, visiting assistant professor of education studies, Laurie Essig, associate professor of sociology and women’s and gender studies, Mike Olenick, professor of mathematics and Sujata Moorti, professor of women’s and gender studies. Three of four of these advisors were members of a group of 17 professors who signed a letter supporting the actions of the five students, which was published in the Campus and on MiddNotes.

Following extensive questioning by the CJB, and back and forth questioning between the five students and the two representatives of the College, four witnesses were called to testify before the board.

Barrett Smith ’13, student co-chair of community council, and Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15, Student Government Association (SGA) Feb Senator were called to respond to questions regarding the reactions of student members of the college community.

Sarah Ray, director of public affairs, was also called as a witness. Ray explained that the mock press release had made her job significantly more difficult during a weekend that was especially hectic for the College, as a result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit to campus.

Peter Hamlin, Christian A. Johnson professor of music, was also called to testify before the CJB. As a former broadcaster, Hamlin spoke to the believability of the press release, explaining that trained journalists would not have been fooled by the students’ action.

Hamlin elaborated that the students’ press release did not use the typical “corporate style” of institutionally sanctioned releases, and that the contact name used by the students — Tim Schornack — sounded much like the fictitious names of the Mad Magazine characters that he used to read about when he was a teenager.

Hamlin described the administration’s response to the students’ press release as a “baffling kind of overreaction,” and warned that a harsh response from the College might further stifle conversation and free expression on campus.

Following the culmination of the questioning of the witnesses, Karen Guttentag, associate dean for judicial affairs and student life and moderator for the hearing, then read five statements submitted by college community members, which served as character witnesses for the students.

The letters were written by two former students as well as three faculty members. In his letter, Nial Rele, Commons Residential Advisor of Brainerd Commons, spoke of Koplinka-Loehr’s compassion in his service as a First-Year Counselor and Residential Advisor.

Olivia Grugan ’12, writing from Palestine, wrote of Ben-Abba’s commitment to speak for the oppressed.

Senior Lecturer in Education Studies Gregg Humphrey defended the dedication and energy of his former student, Marks.

Andrea Olsen, professor of dance and John C. Elder professor of environmental studies, wrote of the high quality work and strong personal convictions of Stuart.

Finally, Amy McGlashan, special assistant to the director in Education In Action, spoke expansively of Saper’s commitment to community building and service.

In their closing statements, the two college officials asked the board to consider a few central themes of the case. First, Roy explained that the CJB would be forced to make the distinction between “political satire” and “deception.” Second, he asked the board to consider, “when do the ends justify the means?” Roy then posited that this case could hold the potential to set a precedent for students in the future.

In their closing, the respondents explained that their action was in response to a campus environment that had inhibited dialogue. Citing the words of Desmond Tutu, Ben-Abba maintained remaining neutral in this case represented taking the side of the oppressor. Ben-Abba called on the administration to hold themselves accountable to their values.

The students were found guilty of violating two sections of the College Handbook, “communicating with honesty and integrity” under the general conduct section of the text, as well as “ethical and law-abiding behavior” under the responsible use of computing and network facilities sub-section.

The five were found not guilty on alleged violations to sections of the same LIS-based policies focused on “conservation of our common resources” and “respect for others.”

After four hours of deliberation, the CBJ called the five students back to Dana Auditorium and informed them that they would receive an unofficial sanction — the College’s least severe sanction under applicable handbook policy.

In light of the sanction, if asked whether or not they have ever received official college discipline, the students will be able to reply, “no.”